Summary: We all know what's meant by "can't see the forest for the trees." It's a great turn of phrase reminding us not to lose scope and to keep the big picture in mind. But what are scope and the big picture anyway? The phrase "forest for trees" is especially apt because it originates in forestry and therefore biology. Within biology patterns of hierarchy from small picture to big picture are plainly in play. It's not just a figment of our imaginations. Atoms make up molecules, which make up cells, which make up organs, which make up bodies, which make up populations, which make up ecologies. There are scope issues from small picture to big in our everyday lives too. In thinking about where you’ll vacation, you might take into consideration what you want, what you and your partner want, what your family wants, and if you have been invited to a family reunion what your extended family wants. In thinking about politics, there’s what you, your community, county, state, country and planet want. In business there’s likewise the costs and benefits for you, your team, your division, your company, your industry, your economy, and the global economy. In caring for your environment, there’s what protects your home, your street, your state, your country, and the globe. With these examples we see that there aren’t really just two levels--trees and forests. It’s not a duplex, it’s a multi-leveled complex. We teach children to deal with the complexity through songs like “The green grass grows all around.” Remember? “There’s a leaf on the twig on the branch on the limb on the tree in the hole…” Taking into account the many levels we could as easily say, “Can’t see the limb for the branches” or “Can’t see the branch for the twigs.” Instead our intuitions pick out just two levels, call them “trees” and “forest” and argue that the broader of the two is the most relevant. We use the saying as a way to focus or constrain attention. It’s a way of saying “you’re paying attention to the wrong picture. The big picture is the right picture.” Is the bigger picture always the right perspective? Some of humanities’ most spectacular failures resulted from ignoring some crucial small-picture detail. We have sayings to warn against not seeing the trees for the forest too, and these are also ways to focus or constrain attention as if to say “You’re paying attention to the wrong picture. The smaller picture is the right picture.” Concentrate where the rubber hits the road. A stitch in time saves nine. The devil is in the details. Or: For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. So it’s not so simple. Sometimes we do worse by not seeing forest for trees, and sometimes we do better. Sometimes we do worse by not seeing the trees for the forest and sometimes we do better. And that’s just two levels. With more levels it becomes much more complicated to figure out where to focus. The problem is even one step more complex than that because there are levels on different questions. Take, for example a decision about whether to have children. Notice the levels issues on the “who, what, where, why, when” and “how” of that question: Who: Whose preferences matter to the decision—mine, my partnership’s, my family’s, the world’s population? What: What factors matter to the decision—money, career, love, hobbies, religion, the economy, the environment? Where: How big an area should I factor into the decision—my own home, my community, the country, the world? Why: In explaining my decision, how deep into r
